Initial consultation results
Below is the summary and main findings of the initial consultation responses. If you would like a copy of the full report please go to the Question section and ask for a copy - include your address if you wish it sent by post, otherwise it will be sent by email as a pdf document.
All the responses have been mapped and can be viewed by clicking below:
Introduction
This report summarises the first 59 questionnaire responses to the public exhibition staged in September 2008. A total of 5,500 invitations to an exhibition were distributed via the local newspaper publisher to residents in the immediate vicinity of the site. 160 people attended on the Friday and Saturday, which is an excellent turnout for an event such as this. All attendees were invited to complete a detailed questionnaire.
Summary
Of the total, 53% per cent were not opposed to the vision and 49% did not disagree with the objectives, although many had reservations about developing on green belt land. Other key issues raised included traffic congestion and local infrastructure being able to cope with more development (sewage and schools predominating).
64% of respondents did not disagree with the objective to limit development to between 40 and 60 per cent of the site, with 66% not disagreeing with concentrating development on the west half of the site. 54% agreed that provision should be made for the elderly.
58% were not opposed to a fifth of the site being set aside for nature conservation, with 66% wanting to keep the fishing lakes as they are. Many wanted to maximise the green areas and minimise the development, with Concept 1 (involving 40 per cent development) being selected by 83% as being the most appropriate. 63% thought that the development should not be bigger than 60%, with 53% thinking the area should be smaller than 40%.
In terms of issues, 71% thought that steps should be included to reduce energy use, 66% thought the development should include rainwater harvesting and extend household recycling, 59% thought there should be designated dog walking areas, 56% would welcome children's play facilities and 61% wanted CCTV in some areas. Other community provisions which were mentioned included sports and recreational facilities, and nature and conservation.
58% thought that the public should not be excluded from the conservation area, 68% thought that the ponds should not be filled in, and 66% thought the paddocks should be retained.
Desired recreational activities included many to do with children and youth, but also walking and dog walking, cycling, tennis, football and swimming. Questions on the provisions of cycling and public transport were inconclusive.
Our vision
Q1: Do you agree with our vision?
24 (41%) respondents said 'no', 19 (32%) said 'yes', 12 were undecided and four did not answer.
Q2: What would be your vision for a sustainable community?
38 respondents added comments here. Some were quite expansive, whereas others were quite blunt.
Many of those who responded to this question wanted to keep the land as green belt. A sample of comments included:
Open space for use by all
Leave as green belt
Keep it as open space
Leave as genuine natural wildlife area
Open up the space to public
To be able to enjoy a green space without any development on it
Keeping green belt land
Should stay as it is, greenbelt only
To leave as open country
Leave it as it is
Open up the site to walkers and leave it alone
Many also suggested 'managed' open space or recreational use. A sample of comments included:
To enhance the green belt areas with managed woodlands
Large leisure centre with a wide range of activities available
Children's play park, room left for horses so it continues to be grazed
Good quality recreational facilities particularly for children and teenagers
Quite a few made comments about housing:
Good quality housing at affordable prices
Good housing and public facilities
No Housing!
Less housing
Agree with developing open spaces
Keep site for recreation, grazing horses. No residential
Recreational only. NO RESIDENTIAL!
Less houses. Children play area
Not so many houses, plenty of greenery
No more houses or industrial units – we have more than enough in the area
Other comments ranged from
I agree with the vision, but not where you are thinking of putting it
No business
Concerned that
Flood protection, sewage and drainage
Our objectives
Q3: Do you agree that these are the correct objectives?
26 (44%) of respondents said 'no' and 23 (39%) said yes. Six had not decided and four did not answer the question.
Q4: What other objectives would you set?
A series of themes came out in people's responses.
Comments largely in favour included:
If you were permitted to develop the land, then most of your objectives are acceptable.
Have more land cultivated like Bedfont Lakes
I agree with the need to restore the land by removing contamination and providing public access.
Comments relating to house numbers and housing generally included:
Minimise housing development to that required to cover cost of enhancing the green
recreational area.
40% housing, the rest parkland. No warehousing.
I think the amount of land given over to development should be less than 40%
No additional housing or industry.
I do not believe building on between 40-60% of that land best meets this
need.
Comments about greenbelt included:
The objective not to build on greenbelt land
It should now be restored to be used as it was originally intended for Green Belt for the local people.
Keep green belt land as green belt land
It is, and should stay protected land
To restrict development of greenbelt to avoid the same happening as in
Green belt should be protected land.
This is Green field land and should be left as a buffer between
To maintain the majority of the site to conservation/greenbelt
Comments relating to open ground and/or recreational uses:
Why not leave the nature to take its course
It may be better environmentally and socially, for the local people, to leave most of the land not open to public access.
Improved open space/nature reserve access
All this talk of recreation areas is an attempt to soft soap us all
Also, ensure future maintenance (costs) have been accounted for.
To leave the site alone as a nature reserve
Keep it as a nature reserve.
Restore the land by removing contamination
Leave the site alone. This site has had public access since it was my childhood play area 40+ years ago.
Give the community breathing space, not more houses and more traffic
Roads/congestion
To not turn this into another mini-ghetto by planning roads that become a rat run.
To allow existing residents the freedom of movement without having unacceptable traffic congestion on main and residential roads.
Not to add traffic to congestion.
Not to add to congestion
Opening another road will create more congestion
Too many cars
Other comments
New primary/secondary schools as schools in the area are oversubscribed.
Minimal disruption to existing community and wildlife
More development increases the risk of flooding
To avoid further burdens on current infrastructure and facilities
Keep boundary line further back from existing housing in
Development principles
Q5: Do you agree that we should limit development to between 40 and 60% of the site?
23 (39%) of respondents said 'yes' and 17 (29%) said 'no', with 15 undecided and four not answering the question.
Q6: Do you think we are right to concentrate our development proposals on the western half of the site?
20 (34%) of respondents said 'yes' to this question, with 19 (32%) undecided. 16 said 'no' and four did not answer the question.
Q7: Do you agree that setting aside about a fifth of the site for nature conservation is appropriate?
21 (36%) of respondents said 'yes' to this question, and 20 (34%) said 'no'. 13 were undecided and five did not answer the question.
Q8: Should we keep the fishing lakes as they are?
A resounding 39 (66%) of respondents said 'yes' to keeping the fishing lakes, with 13 (22%) undecided. Three said 'no' and four did not answer the question.
Q9: What other principles would be important to consider?
Conservation/open space
Yes keep the lakes and develop the area into a wetland
The nature conservation should account for more space.
I think more than a fifth should be conservation
This is a diverse wildlife area – all of it.
Leave the land as open land
To keep the whole site for nature conservation.
There should be much more than 15% for nature conservation, more like 60%.
Nature conservation should exceed 30%.
A wooded buffer zone of at least 30m between the new development and rear of existing properties.
Amount of development
I think 40% development is too much
Stop thinking about houses. Leave the green belt alone.
40% is too light for development
I am very concerned with the concept of building on greenbelt
Recommend 20% which should be sufficient.
Build on the eastern half with no recreational facilities
Development should be less than 40% and on
We want no new housing developments at all especially on green belt land
Leave the horse field and stables alone they enhance the area and are an excellent selling feature for local properties.
40% development of the site
Keep it non-residential
I think 40% is too much too soon!
No housing at all.
Leave the land as it is.
Local infrastructure/traffic
Current services (buses) cannot cope at peak times.
Traffic and parking impacts
Site entrances need to be considered more
The access for vehicles needs to be thought through
How the extra housing would affect the traffic in the already busy road on both sides of the site.
It will turn into urban sprawl between
Land drainage/impact on local healthcare.
Too much traffic.
Traffic!
Other comments
No adverse impact on neighbours – so no facilities for public outdoor events, motorised sports.
An indoor recreation area to include a place for spiritual reflection and worship.
I do not agree with any of this.
Children
